Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 2017

Vol. 953 No. 1

Topical Issue Debate

Supreme Court Rulings

The first Topical Issue, in the name of Deputies Fiona O'Loughlin, Bríd Smith and Mick Barry to the Minister for Justice and Equality, is the Supreme Court ruling on the right of asylum seekers to work. The Deputies have one minute each to make an initial statement. I ask them to stick to the time limits - I did not set them but I am here so they are adhered to - in the interest of fairness to everybody. The Minister has four minutes to reply. The Deputies then have one minute each for a supplementary statement and the Minister has two minutes for a concluding statement. Deputy O'Loughlin is first.

Yesterday, a seven-judge verdict from the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of an asylum seeker challenging the State's ban on him seeking employment. Clearly, this is a significant and, in my view, welcome judgment with many ramifications. The Supreme Court found, in principle, the ban in the Refugee Act on asylum seekers seeking employment ran contrary to the right to seek employment as set out in the Constitution. I am thinking of Zac, Yalda and many others whom I met in the Eyre Powell Hotel in Newbridge to whom this would be welcome information. Will the Department act swiftly to rectify this situation and when can we expect legislation from the Minister to do this?

I thank the Deputy for adhering to the time.

In his report, the retired judge, Mr. Justice McMahon, described those living in direct provision as dehumanised and depressed. He said these people were like ghosts. I am sure these people who are like ghosts celebrated when they heard the outcome of the Supreme Court. Can the Minister imagine sitting around, in many cases for five or six years but in some cases for ten, 11 or 12 years, and doing absolutely nothing? I read back over the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton's report when we discussed this on 30 March. The Minister of State went into the detail of all the problems with the direct provision system and how it needs to be addressed. Not once in that report did the Minister of State mention the right to work and yet we read in The Irish Times this morning that a spokesman for the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, stated that independently of the judgment, she had started to examine options that would allow asylum seekers to access the labour market in certain circumstances. I do not believe it for one minute. I do not believe that the Department will sincerely address the question of the right to work.

I have given the Deputy enough latitude.

I believe, rather, that the Department will try to fast-track asylum seekers out of the system in order to get over the constitutional issue.

I believe the case was taken by a Burmese man who had been in the system for eight years. He spoke about an almost complete loss of autonomy. He spoke about depression. He spoke about the effects that being forced not to work for that period of time had on his sense of self-worth. Approximately 5,000 people are trapped in this system, and more than one third of them are children.

It is a shame that successive Governments in the past 17 years have kept this system in place. I hope this is an opportunity to end the direct provision system, as well as ending the ban on the right to work for asylum seekers. I look forward to the Minister of State's comments.

I thank the Deputies for tabling this Topical Issue which provides a useful opportunity for me to outline some initial views to the House. Clearly, this is a very important judgment and its full implications are being examined carefully. The court recognises the complexities of this issue in that it acknowledges the Executive function in not only controlling who should enter the State but also in regulating the activities of non-citizens while in the State. It has also had to consider the distinctions in rights between citizens and non-citizens in the context of Article 40.1 of the Constitution. The right of asylum seekers to work is an issue I have raised previously and in recent weeks both the Tánaiste and I asked our officials to begin work to identify the options for and barriers to asylum seekers in accessing the labour market in particular defined circumstances. Yesterday’s judgment gives this work increased emphasis and priority. The judgment has concluded that an absolute ban on the right to work, as distinct from a time limit being set in legislation or by some other means, is contrary to rights under Article 40.1 of the Constitution. The court recognises that this is a matter for the Executive and the Legislature to consider and, accordingly, has adjourned consideration of what order it should make for a period of six months. Full consideration will be given to the judgment in the coming period and it is expected that the State will make submissions to the court on the format of the order it is to make at the appropriate time. The judgment raises obvious policy, legal and operational issues and my Department, working with the Office of the Attorney General and in consultation with other Departments, will be examining its impacts in the coming period. Proposals will be brought to the Government as soon as that process concludes. Contributions from Members of this House to this process will also be carefully considered. The judgment should not be looked at in isolation without recognising the considerable changes that have already been made to the system of international protection and the improvements that have been made and are continuing to be made to the direct provision system. The new asylum legislation which commenced on 31 December last has been specifically designed to address the delays in decision making which resulted in increased time spent in direct provision accommodation. Positive determinations have been made in 115 cases in the first three months of this year, the result of which is that the individuals in question are fully entitled to access the labour market.

Regarding the overall length of stay in direct provision accommodation, since the working group led by Mr. Justice McMahon examined the issue, there has been a radical improvement in the length of time persons spend in the direct provision system. Figures show that 72% have been in direct provision accommodation for three years or less since the date of their application. This compares to a figure of 36% for persons who had been there for three years or less when the data were compiled for the working group in 2015. In other words, there has been a complete reversal in the profile of the length of stay since the working group examined the matter. These improvements are as a result of concerted efforts to deal with the cases of applicants five or more years in the system.

Overall, 92% of the McMahon report’s 173 recommendations have been implemented, partially implemented or are in progress. This is a significant increase on the figure of 80% reported in the first audit of progress published last June. That means 121 of the recommendations made have been implemented, with a further 38 either partially implemented or in progress. Two of the most recent recommendations to be implemented involve bringing the offices of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children into the system whereby they can now hear complaints from residents of direct provision centres.

The McMahon report also focused on improvements in living conditions in direct provision centres. A programme of independent living is being rolled out across the centres to enable residents to have access to self-catering options. A self-catering system is in operation in Mosney, with further kitchens installed and becoming available for use by residents in centres in Clonakilty, on the Kinsale Road, in Knocklisheen and St Patrick’s in Monaghan. In addition, a food hall was opened at Mosney in January this year which allows residents to acquire their own food through a points system.

The question of the right to work is closely intertwined with the processing times for first instance decisions. In many EU member states the right to work is not unfettered. It often arises after a particular period of time, usually nine months to one year, and in many instances is limited to particular job categories. In Sweden and Portugal, for example, the granting of a right to work coincides with the withdrawal of financial supports. One of the principal aims of the International Protection Act is to process cases as quickly as possible in order that persons granted permission to stay will have an automatic right to work. Providing for a legal or practical limitation on the time taken to process an application for asylum is one option mentioned in the judgment that may be permissible. This will be a matter for further consideration.

The full implications of the judgment are being examined, including the wider implications for the operation of the common travel area and the upcoming Brexit negotiations. However, what can be said at this point is that the Government, through its various measures to improve processing rates, is moving to the stage where first instance decisions on status will be made as quickly as possible, with persons granted status having an automatic right to work. Clearly, the alignment of these important developments will form part of the detailed consideration and response to yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. It is good to know that he, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality and officials in the Department have started examining and working on the judgment. It is also welcome that 92% of the 173 of the recommendations made by the McMahon report have been implemented. Will the Minister of State clarify when we can expect to see legislation to implement the Supreme Court's judgment? Does the Department intend to legislate as per the recommendation made in the McMahon report which makes specific reference to providing access to the labour market for applicants who are awaiting a first instance decision for nine months or more and who have co-operated with the protection process? The recommendation reflects the minimum standard across several EU member states. I appeal to the Minister of State's compassion and ask him to ensure legislation will be brought forward as quickly as possible to deal with this issue.

The Minister of State's reply confirms my suspicions. What he has said is that those who are granted permission to stay have an automatic right to work. What about those who are waiting for permission to stay? Even if they have been here for only nine months, with every hungry belly there is a pair of hands and often a very good brain. Many of the people concerned are highly educated and well trained and have a lot to contribute to society. It appears that the Government is worried that an unfettered right to work for asylum seekers would have a huge impact on the Brexit negotiations, but I do not understand that argument. Just because a person has the right to work does not mean that he or she has the right to leave the country when he or she is seeking asylum here. All it says to me is that the Irish Government and the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, are scared stiff of asylum seekers and immigrants who are fleeing war, famine, persecution and dictatorships. It tallies very nicely with Theresa May's policies and the fortress Europe policy. That is what the Government is worried about. It is concerned about the impact on Brexit if it allows asylum seekers to use their labour and brains to make a difference and seek a better life in this country. That is both racist and wrong.

The provision of direct provision centres has been a shameful episode in the history of the nation. A comparison has been made with the Magdalen laundries of former days and it is fair to say the centres are the Magdalen laundries of our time. I do not buy the Minister of State's argument that the fact that people are spending less time in direct provision accommodation is entirely down to the Government's humanitarian policies and progress thereon. It also reflects the fact that there has been a speeding up of deportations, with many people being forcibly evicted from the country.

I await the Government's proposals with interest and will study them very carefully. However, I urge campaigners on this issue not to sit back and wait for the Government's proposals. Now is the time for asylum seekers and anti-racism campaigners to organise to make sure that whatever change does happen is the best possible change for asylum seekers. The pressure will come from below.

Deputy Mick Barry is very articulate in condemning the direct provision centres, but he does not say what he would put in their place. I invite him to let me know what he would do if he was Minister for Justice and Equality. What would he like to see instead of direct provision centres?

I will let the Minister of State know.

I have visited most of the direct provision centres in the country and seen that massive improvements have been made. I have spoken to many residents and the vast majority are quite happy with what is happening. That said, we have more to do and will continue to do more. The judgment was only published yesterday. It will be considered very carefully because it has wide-ranging implications. Maintaining the common travel area is a very serious matter and anything that might have an impact on it must be considered carefully. It has to be considered-----

How will it have an impact?

The judgment was only published yesterday. We will take time to examine it carefully and will move as quickly as possible, as Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin urged, to bring forward legislation. We welcome the judgment. I point out that the lower courts went the other way in this case, but the Supreme Court has now clarified the matter. However, there are other implications which must be considered and that will be done at the earliest possible opportunity.

Disability Support Services

I am disappointed that the Minister for Health is not here to give me an answer in person. I would like to share one minute of my time with Deputy Mary Butler because she has concerns about this important matter which I am raising on behalf of the families, residents and staff of the Camphill community in Ballytobin, County Kilkenny. In recent days the independent regulator, HIQA, has issued a notice of determination to cancel the registration of the Ballytobin facility. It followed a two-week stay during which those involved with the Camphill community in Ballytobin had a short opportunity to address issues related to safeguarding and governance. The notice of determination came as a shock to many parents who were under the impression that the community was very close to HIQA registration in October 2016. The parents and guardians of residents of the facility are concerned that their loved ones will face relocation if a resolution to this HIQA action cannot be found. That would be very unfortunate. Parents have told me about the great respect they have for the staff at the facility. Staff have established fantastic relationships with residents, some of whom have been at Ballytobin for over 40 years. Parents and residents are hopeful that if another service provider can be found and the issues flagged by HIQA can be identified and rectified, the community could be retained in its current form. If the residents of the Camphill community in Ballytobin have to be relocated to an alternative location, they will face a tough adjustment.

I have taken many calls from parents and guardians who have huge praise for the unique and holistic approach taken at the Camphill facility in Ballytobin where heavy medication is a last resort. One mother has told me she is extremely worried that as a result of this decision, her son will be heavily medicated for behavioural challenges and will not experience the fullness of life he currently enjoys as a resident of the Camphill community in Ballytobin. I have also been contacted by a musician who regularly visits the community. This is how he has described his time at Ballytobin:

My experience of life in Ballytobin from an outside perspective has been of a community full of joy and happiness. The relationship between the co-workers and residents seemed to me to be both professional and deeply caring. I have never experienced such a close bond in any other care community anywhere.

The parents, guardians, staff and residents are desperate for this unique community to be saved, but that will not happen unless the HSE takes temporary charge until an alternative service provider can be secured. It would be a shame to close the facility owing to minor red tape infractions which could be easily identified and rectified. Can the Government advise me of its plans in that regard?

Let me intervene before Deputy Mary Butler speaks. The reply I have been given is to a different Topical Issue that was to be raised by Deputy Mattie McGrath. As a result, I might not be able to respond to the matter raised by Deputies Mary Butler and Bobby Aylward.

We accept that. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, might come back to us with the correct text.

I am also very concerned about the situation at the Camphill community at Ballytobin, near Callan, County Kilkenny. I thank my colleague, Deputy Bobby Aylward, for giving me an opportunity to speak about the matter. As he said, this unique community which is located in a wonderful non-medical environment provides community-based services for residents with challenging behaviours who are in the medium to profound category of disability. Fantastic relationships have been built between residents, staff and family members. The Minister for Health and the HSE need to find a new service provider as a matter of extreme urgency in order that the issues raised by HIQA can be rectified. We cannot fail the many residents of the Camphill community in Ballytobin, including one of my constituents, Caroline, who has called it home for the last 17 years. In light of the unique setting of this unique community, we would certainly like to protect this model to help the most vulnerable people in the country. There are 19 adults at risk of losing what has essentially been their home for up to 43 years in some cases. As I said, this community setting works. As parents have testified, residents will not enjoy the fullness of life they currently enjoy if this unique community is not allowed to continue. I can give the Minister of State evidence of this, if he so wishes.

I thank the Deputies for raising this matter. I know that they are sincere in their interest in it. I am standing in for the Minister of State at the Department of Health who is responsible for this area. Unfortunately, I have been given the wrong reply. I must, therefore, apologise for my inability to respond to the specific issues raised, but I will certainly bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of State. I again apologise to the Deputies. I expected a different issue to be raised by Deputy Mattie McGrath as that is what I was advised. I will certainly bring the serious and important matter raised by the Deputies to the attention of the Minister of State.

I thank the Minister of State. This is a local issue, not only in County Kilkenny but also in counties Waterford, Tipperary and Wexford.

And County Kildare.

There are residents in the Camphill community in Ballytobin from all around the south east. In the light of the failure of the Minister of State with responsibility for this important matter to come to the Chamber, I ask the Minister of State, Deputy David Stanton, to arrange for the Minister in State in question to meet us in person. If he could do that, it would make up for the confusion caused. There is no use in going on any more because the relevant Minister of State is not here. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy David Stanton, for his patience and again ask him to contact the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, to ascertain whether he will meet us personally. I will arrange a meeting with a group that is interested in the matter.

I thank the Deputy. That is most helpful.

I certainly will do that. I will also arrange for a written reply to be sent to the Deputies as soon as possible this afternoon. I apologise again for the confusion.

I thank the Minister of State.

Employment Rights

I thank the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, for making himself available. He always responds to his own Topical Issues. I am grateful for his presence, bearing in mind the week that is in it.

The issue I am raising pertains to seasonal part-time workers who play an essential and critical role in the tourism, farming and fishing sectors. During a debate on the Social Welfare Bill 2016 last November we agreed to withdraw a Report Stage amendment on this issue following the giving of a commitment by the Minister to conduct a review within three months. I am disappointed that almost six months later, there is still no sign of the report in question. The report was to have been made available in March or April this year, but we are now at the end of May and it is still not available.

The anomalies in the current social welfare rules and regulations make it virtually impossible for seasonal part-time workers to access social welfare entitlements when the season ends. The requirement for such workers to make a further 13 weeks of contributions within the final 78 days of their existing claim period of 234 days is particularly problematic. It is just not possible. Depending on the day on which existing claims expire, it does not allow for the seasonality of the sectors to which I have referred. Some workers' claims are expiring when seasonal work is no longer available. The current system, therefore, works against part-time and seasonal workers. The requirement to have paid 117 contributions in a three-year period equates to 39 contributions per annum. It is almost impossible to find 39 weeks of seasonal work. The current position can only be described as a poverty trap. The income threshold of €12.70 a day, or €63.50 a week, is unfair. If a seasonal worker earns such an amount from his or her secondary income source, he or she will not be eligible to receive unemployment benefit. It defies logic that a low annual subsidiary income of €3,302 is sufficient to deny someone the right to obtain a social welfare payment.

I want to put in context the income levels about which we are talking. A seasonal part-time worker typically earns between €5,500 and €8,500 during his or her working season. Many of these workers who are on very low incomes have no other skills other than those needed for the seasonal work in which they engage. I remind the House that they play an important role in the tourism, fishing and farming sectors. These zero-hour contract workers have very little job security. Many of them have worked as seasonal part-time workers every year for many years. I know people in my constituency who have engaged in seasonal work for over 20 years but who in the past two years have been unable to access social welfare contributions. It makes no sense. I know that Deputy Leo Varadkar is a caring Minister who wants to do something about this. He said earlier today that he did not want to sign off on reports until he knew where he would be next week. I suggest that because he has a handle on this issue, he sign off on the report and deal with it as quickly as possible.

I want to correct something I said earlier. I mentioned that I would be at the joint committee tomorrow but I will not be. That particular matter is being handled by officials but I will be in the House.

I wish to advise the Deputy that my Department has not made any changes recently to the arrangements that apply to seasonal workers and part-time workers who need to access social welfare payments once their employment ceases. My Department administers over 70 different schemes and services and has committed to ensuring that claims are processed as expeditiously as possible. One of the main priorities for the Department is to build on achievements already made to integrate services into the Intreo service delivery model and streamline the applications process for all schemes. If the Deputy has any particular concerns, perhaps he would let me have the details and I will follow up on them.

In general, seasonal and part-time workers should apply for jobseeker’s benefit or allowance as soon as they become unemployed. In order to qualify for jobseeker’s benefit or jobseeker’s allowance a person must satisfy certain conditions. To qualify for jobseeker’s benefit the first condition is that the person must have at least 104 reckonable contributions, under classes A, H or P paid since they entered insurable employment. Class S self-employed contributions are not reckonable for jobseeker’s benefit. To satisfy the second condition, a person must have at least 39 reckonable contributions paid or credited in the governing contribution year, GCY. The GCY is the second last complete contribution year running from 1 January to 31 December before the year in which the claim is made. For any person making a claim in 2017, the GCY would be 2015. Of these, 13 contributions must be paid or the person must have at least 26 reckonable contributions paid in both the GCY and the year immediately preceding it - for 2017, this would be 2015 and 2014. If a person does not have 13 paid contributions in the relevant GCY, they must have 13 contributions paid in either of the two tax years before the relevant GCY or the last complete tax year or the current tax year - for 2017, this would be 2016 and 2017. Initially, when a person makes an application for jobseeker’s benefit, three waiting days apply and payment is made from the fourth day of the claim. If, however, a person makes a repeat claim for jobseeker’s benefit within 26 weeks of their previous claim, the repeat claim links to the earlier claim and no waiting days apply. Admittedly, that is quite hard to follow.

Jobseeker’s assistance is a means tested payment and earnings are taken into account in determining means. A person must satisfy certain conditions, including being available for and genuinely seeking work. Casual part-time workers may qualify for jobseeker’s allowance subject to satisfying the means test and other qualifying conditions. A disregard of €20 a day, up to a maximum of €60, applies up to a maximum of three days and the balance is assessed at 60%.

In determining the assessable income from insurable employment, the following deductions are allowed: superannuation, additional voluntary contributions, AVCs, PRSI, the pension levy and trade union subscriptions. The person’s net average assessable weekly earnings are assessed by reference to the previous 13 weeks or another period if this is more representative of the person's normal working pattern. Jobseeker’s allowance is not payable where the average means are equal to or in excess of the relevant family rate of payment.

School educational sector workers, who are employed on a temporary basis and who have previously been in contact with the Department, are issued with a repeat jobseeker's application form and holiday form in advance of the school holiday periods. This advance process facilitates an efficient service to these customers and allows for speedy processing of their claim when the period of unemployment actually arises. However, it is important to note that educational sector workers are still required to sign on for each period of unemployment.

The governing legislation states that a day shall not be treated as a day of unemployment, it shall be treated as a day of employment unless it is considered subsidiary employment. To be considered subsidiary employment, the work being undertaken should be in addition to the usual full-time employment, and the remuneration received by the jobseeker must not exceed €12.70 a day or the jobseeker must have a minimum of 117 PRSI contributions paid immediately preceding the date of the claim or in respect of the last three complete contribution years.

I am almost finished. Where a person has been working in his or her usual employment and also working in a second employment, the second employment could only be considered subsidiary if the above conditions are satisfied.

I gave a commitment on Report Stage of the Social Welfare Bill 2016 in the Dáil that I would ask my officials to examine the issue of jobseeker's benefit and the treatment of part-time and seasonal workers, including those categorised as having subsidiary employment. That report is currently being undertaken with the intention of presenting it to the Joint Committee on Social Protection shortly. The timeframe is ambitious but I am committed to producing the report as quickly as possible so that it can inform any decisions we might make for budget 2018.

I presume the Minister will arrange for a copy of his reply to be circulated. Apart from the last 15 seconds of the Minister's reply, and I timed it, everything he said prior to that was not relevant to the Topical Issue I raised. He has told me exactly what I know but I asked about the report. I am pleased the report will be available soon and I hope it will provide some solace to all these people. I note from an internal review in the Department that this is happening and that it will go to the deputy secretary and the Minister soon. I hope it will deal with the real issue.

The Minister spoke of the changes that were made recently, of the 70 schemes and services run by his Department and said that it tries to process claims as quickly as possible. That is not relevant to the question I asked. The question I asked was about the commitment made by the Minister on 22 November to come back to this issue. We withdrew an amendment to the legislation, in good faith, which we could have pushed but the Minister said at the time if it were to be included in the Act, the process would go on for much longer. It could not have gone on much longer. We did that in good faith.

The Minister is doing a disservice and the review will do a disservice unless it improves the lot of these seasonal and part-time workers. This has been going on since 22 November. I know the Minister met a lobby group in Donegal last week. In fact, it was not the Minister but his colleague, Deputy McHugh who told them that Pat The Cope Gallagher's pronouncements on this were not helping the case. I am not casting any aspersions on the Minister because I know that is not his form but that was suggested. Now we are being told that as a result of that meeting a review has commenced. The waters are muddied and there is a great deal of being economical with the truth. I would like the Minister to clarify in his final response that the review did not start as a result of his meeting in Donegal and that it had started post 22 November. His colleague should stop reinventing and playing with other people's toys.

I acknowledge that was a rather convoluted reply setting out the rules as they are, which was not quite what the Deputy asked me about, He asked about the review. I do not know when the review started but it has been under way for some time. It would have been some time after the Social Welfare Bill passed through the Dáil. It probably started some time earlier this year.

I met a delegation of people involved in the fishing industry in Gweedore a few weeks ago at the request of the Minister of State, Deputy McHugh. I did not hear him making any remarks of that nature in my presence so-----

The Minister was not present.

-----I do not know whether that was the case or not. We are doing the work on the review. The key issue is to have it done well before the next budget. We want to have it done before the summer so that we can see what the options are and what they will cost with a view to making some changes in the budget to be then implemented in the Social Welfare Bill before the end of the year, but we must understand the consequences involved with respect to any changes we make. Something might make sense for seasonal workers in the fishing industry and maybe other industries but, if we get it wrong, it might open the door to huge numbers of part-time and seasonal workers becoming eligible for jobseeker's payments in a way that would not be affordable. The work that is being done now is to examine what we could do to improve matters and to set out the options and the costs so that we might consider them in the context of the budget in October and the Social Welfare Bill thereafter.

As the Deputy knows from the information he already has, I have not seen the review yet but it is being worked on in the Department. I look forward to making it available as soon as possible.

The Minister is synonymous now not with millions but billions of euro. This will not cost many millions of euro.

The Deputy knows that there cannot be an exchange to and fro.

In that case we would do it but if it costs hundreds of millions of euro, it might be a problem.

Fisheries Protection

I assume the Minister is equally aware of the difficulties regarding special predators and the consequent effect of diminishing fish stocks on the income of inshore fishermen, in particular those who have been struggling for a considerable time to try to make a living. I tabled this Topical Issue following several meetings I have had with various fishing organisations and communities along the south and the west coast. I imagine this problem affects every part of Ireland's coast and that people are having similar experiences.

The argument being made is that the growing population of seals is responsible for a great deal of the damage that has been done to our fishing stocks.

One person I met had been fishing that morning with gillnet and got ten boxes of cod. I have a picture showing how three of them were absolutely destroyed by seals, and I can give the Minister a copy afterwards. That is practically a third of his catch for that day gone. Fishermen have difficulties trying to make ends meet before facing up to that. Others are drift netting and have the same experience. I have also met people involved with angling. I did not realise that, in particular, along the coastal areas and mouths of rivers, salmon breeding areas are being attacked by seals. That is their argument and people want to see what can be done.

I have been told a study has been carried out by the French Government and its findings have been accepted and supported by the European Union, EU, and it concerns the damage being done by seals to fish stocks. There is a lobby within the group seeking some kind of cull system to deal with the matter. The Minister might be able to enlighten the House about that. The body with the appropriate remit - I assume it is the National Parks and Wildlife Service - should carry out a survey on this to determine what can be done. In many parts of the country there is overpopulation of deer etc. and culling is put in place for various reasons. There is a strong argument that there should be a cull of the seal population in order to protect fish stocks and ensure people can get their just rewards.

It is not acceptable for somebody to haul the nets after 48 hours to find a third of the catch gone. There is a responsibility on us to act. It may not be politically palatable, and certain members of the public may find difficulty with this. Some mechanism should be formulated on the back of evidence supplied to us and this House by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Will the Minister confirm that the French Government has carried out a survey whose findings have been accepted by the EU in this regard. It is my understanding that this is the case.

I thank Deputy Ferris for raising the matter. Seals are a protected species under the EU Habitats Directive and seals are also protected under the Wildlife Acts. I am advised two species of seals, grey seals and harbour seals, are common in Irish waters. In so far as the management of the seal population is concerned, I clarify for the Deputy that this is the responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, and it is administered by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

I am aware the inshore fisheries sector is concerned about the interaction between seals and commercial inshore stocks. In January 2016, the National Parks and Wildlife Service accepted an invitation to discuss the seal population with the National Inshore Fisheries Forum, and I understand this discussion was viewed as constructive by both sides. I am also aware of the keen interest in seals by environmental non-governmental organisations such as the Irish Seal Sanctuary, which is active nationally and internationally in marine conservation spheres. I understand from the Marine Institute that a seal and fisheries focus group was set up to bring together industry, science and non-governmental organisations. Membership of the group has included scientists from the Marine Institute, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the coastal and marine research centre of University College Cork, together with representatives from the Irish Seal Sanctuary and the Irish sea fishing industry. I am advised the group meets on an ad hoc basis.

With regard to research priorities for issues concerning sea fisheries, the Irish Fisheries Science Research Partnership was set up on an official basis to enhance collaboration and mutual understanding on fisheries science priorities that are beneficial to the long-term future of the Irish fishing industry. The partnership includes industry representatives such as those from the fishing industry producer organisations, the National Inshore Fisheries Forum and scientists from both the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It meets on a regular basis throughout the year to discuss scientific work programmes and priorities, including those relating to interactions between seals and sea fisheries. With regard to the interaction between seal populations and the conservation of fish stocks, I am advised that seals eat a wide variety of fish and invertebrates. Their diet appears to vary considerably depending on location, time of year and the abundance of available prey. I understand seals also consume salmon and other protected species that are under the responsibility for the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. I say this to illustrate the complexity of seal-fisheries interactions and particularly dealing with protected species.

In December 2013, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, published a report entitled Seal Depredation and Bycatch in Set Net Fisheries in Irish Waters. It found the predation impact of seals on landings of pollock, hake and monkfish had substantially increased since the 1990s and recommended mitigation measures such as smart fishing techniques, acoustic deterrents etc. be developed with stakeholder participation. BIM currently has a study under way in conjunction with the Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy in University College Cork on the use of deterrents in different types of sea fisheries. A number of trials have taken place over the past year and further trials are planned this summer.

Seals are protected under the EU Habitats Directive and the Wildlife Acts but permits may be obtained under section 42 of the Wildlife Acts to hunt seals where significant damage is being caused. This redress is available, for example, to individual fishermen to control damage to fisheries by seals at particular locations. Permits may be issued by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in response to specific applications, with each application considered on its merits. I am advised that anybody with concerns about interactions with seals in particular locations should contact their local National Parks and Wildlife Service ranger in the first instance.

I thank the Minister for his reply. My understanding is an application can be made to the National Parks and Wildlife and Service by a fishing organisation or community, and if the evidence is supported by an investigation, there would be some process to deal with the matter. The problem is that this is not happening. Perhaps much of that is down to people not being aware of the problem, and even our discussing it this afternoon might go some way towards giving people an avenue to bring the matter to the attention of the National Parks and Wildlife Service so it can carry out a survey and make appropriate decisions.

I would like to see even more than that. The damage being done to sea stocks and breeding grounds around this country is often argued to be the result of overfishing and reckless landings etc. What part of it could be down to the consumption of fish by the seal population? I have fished and I know seals have huge consumption rates, although they are beautiful creatures. On one occasion when I was fishing salmon, there were 34 salmon in my net, but by the time I got the net to the boat, there were 17 fish left. One seal had taken them and that goes back quite a bit. It was the norm at the time but the population was not nearly as big as it is now. We have the responsibility to get word to various organisations and communities that there is an avenue that they could pursue.

The Minister has not said anything about the evidence from the French survey. Would the relevant line Minister have it?

I am the line Minister.

The Minister is the relevant line Minister.

I am on fisheries matters. I appreciate the insight that Deputy Ferris brings to the matter. I also appreciate that for inshore fisheries, this is a particular issue. The Deputy's photograph showed three from ten boxes being affected, which concurs with the statistics that we have. There was a BIM survey in 2015 that showed damage to catches caused by seals ranging from 59% of monkfish to 18% of pollock and 10% of hake catches over the course of 12 months of extensive onboard observations on inshore and offshore vessels.

That is approximately a third of catches, which is a very significant loss of effort by fishermen who, in the best of times, are never on the pig's back economically speaking.

This is an issue. The challenge for us in trying to deal with it is to bring together all the stakeholders, in particular the NGOs, which are particularly active in this area and which serve a very important function in the context of conservation. Seals are a protected species. There is provision under the Wildlife Acts, administered by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, for culling in certain circumstances. Perhaps consideration could be given to the regional inshore fisheries fora, at which cases in locations around the countryside in respect of which there may be issues can be considered in the context of provisions under the law. As I stated, the relevant legislation is section 42 of the Wildlife Acts. However, I think it would be preferable to proceed on an agreed basis with all the relevant stakeholders. There is provision for this. Awareness of the legislation is important. Perhaps the Deputy, through his good offices, could bring the legislation to the attention of the regional inshore fisheries fora and I am sure they could pursue the matter on a collaborative basis. There are fora already in existence.

Sitting suspended at 4.30 p.m. and resumed at 5.10 p.m.
Top
Share